We are more than material beings!
It is I think self-evident that we are not merely material beings. This is because of many reasons but mostly do to the fact that we actually have analytic proofs for the soul. for example: There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body. So "I" am not identical with my body and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul.
Comments (136)
The conclusion doesn't follow.
Rather than say I am not identical with my body, I would say that the more substantial part of my body represents just over aspect of myself. Of course, the more one peers deeper and deeper c into substantiality, the more in becomes insubstantial. So the body, mind, and spirit are a unity which progresses from the more insubstantial (spirit, mind, emotions, qualia) to the more substantial (fluids, muscle, bone, etc.). There is no boundary anywhere.
Such as?
Do you believe that your mind ends at your skull?
According to the law of identity, if A=B then what is true of A is true of B and vice versa.
1. We can say that my thoughts that 1+1=3 or all humans are white, are not true. My thoughts thus have a property of being right or wrong but it is not the case with my brain. My mental state (m) (e.g.1+1=3) at a given time (t1) is not identical with my brain function (b) at given time (t1). So m at t1 is not identical with b at t1. This is because it is illogical to say, for example, that my brain function is right or wrong nor is it the case that my thought of a book is oval shaped as is the electric charge in my brain while I think about a book.
2. "I" (ego, my consciousness/person) am not divisible kind of thing. All spatially extended objects can be divided in percents (I don´t mean that we would have the means to divide lets say fermions, but that they can be divided into percents) but I cannot be. I don´t know what it means to say that after a brain surgery (10% of my brains would have been removed) I would be 10% less a person. This seem quite the obvious. 1. So all spatially extended objects are divisible. 2. I am not divisible. 3. I am not spatially extended object. 4. My brain and body are spatially extended objects. 5. Therefore I am not my brain and body.
3. If it would be the case that I am identical with my brain and body I would not be the same thing through the course of time. It is pretty uncontroversial that if I have a pile of 10 bricks and I would take one brick away and change it to another the pile that I know have is not identical with the original pile. Since our bodies are constantly changing, loosing parts and gaining new ones, our bodies and brains are not identical with the bodies and brains we had a week ago. But if we are identical with our brain and body then we are not the same human beings we were in past. If we do not endure through one hour to another due to our metabolic processes many things becomes absurd. One example is that it is obviously stupid to require a payment of loan from a person who have not taken the loan. But this is what banks are doing if we are identical with our brain and body.
These are some of the reasons for thinking that we have a soul/mind.
Ps. Sorry for my english, I am not native speaker.
Someone recently said to me that every so many years all material that a person's body was previously composed of has been replaced with other material. I do not know where he got the number, but, if I recall correctly, every 13 years was the number he said.
If that is true then 13 years after a child is born all of the material that his/her body was composed of at the time of his/her birth is gone.
I agree only partially though. Why?
Well, in my view, I think the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So, indeed, the mind is something greater than the brain. We see this everywhere. Ant/bee colonies, cars, humans, human societies. In fact, everything that is made of more than 1 thing has this feature. I think this is a wonderful thing because it allows for amazing possibilities e.g. an ant colony can be viewed as another organism distinct from the individual ants that compose it. Who knows what such organizing paradigms can achieve. Super-organisms, super-super-organisms and so on.
However, another fact that we can't disregard is that the mind/self/ego is tied inseparably to the brain. There's no evidence whatsoever that shows the mind can exist independently of the brain. So, the notion of a soul, eternal and indestructible, if that's what you're getting at, is still beyond reach.
All the observations you've mentioned are true but they still can't prove, what is to me, the crucial point - that the soul survives death. If that can't be done the soul, immaterial or whatever, is still nothing better than a material soul.
The super-organism (the ant colony) is definitely something greater than the individual ant. Take out one, or two, a few hundred, and the colony still continues to exist. But kill all the ants, and the colony dies with them. There's a difference, agreed, between the individual ant and the colony. But, the difference is not enough for the ant colony to survive the death of all the ants it consists of.
So, free will may not be that easy to entertain as a possibility unless, of course, you think power flows from the mind to the brain too. I think it does, for example, thoughts can have profound influence on the body e.g. the placebo effect, the power of suggestion, etc. But these can be more simply explained as the body affecting the body or the brain playing with itself, if you will.
If one thing is affecting another thing with a specific willful action then what is the impetus? Where does this come from? The mind is always lurking somewhere, implicitly or explicitly even if it is transferred outside into some natural force.
Then why do we have a body AND a soul? If it is believed that we can interact with God and other souls when we are merely souls, then why do we need bodies? The band VETO, asks a very pointed question in one of their songs,
"What's the point of a soul when all I'm [my body] being is a faulty copy of myself [my soul]?"
Much of what is known about mind-brain is gleaned from electrodes (being placed in brain regions and shocking them; or TMS). The most easily cited example of shocking a part of the brain and producing drastic effects in consciousness is at the claustrum (when it's stimulated, consciousness is lost). The source of energy which changes brain function in these experiments is rather arbitrary. Organismically, the voltage differentials of neurons are held in place by energy from the organism and its organization and interaction with the environment and likely stimulated non locally as well as locally. If we want to attribute causation to the electricity coming from an electrode placed in the brain, you have to realize this is nothing like the electrical causation that operates the brain in everyday experience. For the brain to change function naturally there has to be an interaction between the organism and the plenum, not just shocking or magnetism.
Shooting free throws in the mind is ontologically nothing like shocking the brain with electrodes, and how they cause changes in function and form of the brain are in entirely different spheres of causality. We don't go about our daily life shocking the brain with electrodes to cause perceptions and conscious experience. Natural causation of brain-mind is nothing like artificial stimulation of the brain. In the final analysis, I'm not sure I can accept too much of what is learned about the mind by artificial stimulation of brain.
We're material beings called animals.
That's all we are.
There's nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing disparaging about that.
Animals are an astonishing, impressive result of natural selection.
I discuss that in more detail in the "Implications of Evolution" topic.
I don't agree with you about what the evidence says. There's no evidence that we're other than an animal, a body. There's nothing in our experience that isn't consistent with that.
I should add that I claim that there's no evidence that our world is other than a hypothetical possibility world. ...and that our life is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story.
Your life-experience possiblity-story is a story about an animal's experience--your experience.
I discuss that in detail in the topic "A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics", at the Metaphysics and Epistemology forum.
Michael Ossipoff
The mind is different from the brain but it's not completely independent of the brain. So, it's ok to think that we have a soul but that's where the story comes to an end. After life, free will, etc. don't follow from the existence of a soul.
I believe that Rupert Sheldrake has suggested that the mind is a field like gravity and that it extends beyond one's skull.
I'm? not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Sheldrake.
He is against physicalism/materialism.
I personally believe that everything is interconnected and reciprocal and that the mind is not a dead-end closed system contained in a skull and cut off from everything else.
IT is self evident and yet needs justification?
Claiming that your mental state is not the same as your brain state begs the question.
The right vs. wrong argument needs filling out. If your thought that 1+1=3 is, say, and emergent property, then it is your argument would not follow. It would be analogous to saying that it is not 17ºC, because no molecule in the air is at 17ºC.
Not sure what 10% of a fermion would be.
Are you the same as you were as a child? Your life can be divided into parts, so we might take pause before deciding that your mind is indivisible. You also divide smell from sight.
And again, the claim that you are not extended begs the question - because if you are exactly your body, then you are extended.
You never changed your mind?
The Ship of Theseus remains Theseus' Ship, despite such changes, if it is rigidly designated.
2. Your analogy of fermion is pretty inadequate unless you think that mind is some sort of particle and thus presuppose materialism which is not good way to argue. And I claim that "I" (ego, self) am not my body, I am a soul and have a body.
3. Change of mind does not mean change in substance. I am not claiming that I am equivocal to my thoughts or beliefs. My soul (substance) have faculties like: Thought, beliefs, intentionality/volition, desires and feelings/perceptions. It does not follow that change of mind (thought are state of consciousness) is change in substance. The ship of Theseus I think is not wholly applicable to my argument for following reasons:
1. I think it is pretty obvious that the ship with which Theseus started his trip is not identical with the ship which arrived to his destination.
2. Then if a person is identical to his brain and body he/she is not identical (law of identity applied here) ego with his/hers old self. This leads to the question "Can we hold person responsible for their moral behavior since they are not literally the same being who committed the actions (lets take Joseph Mengele who died as non-identical to his old self).
3. If we say that Theseus´ ship is still Theseus´ (which, in context of ownership, seems obvious) then who owns the body that I have or what makes my body my body. I Think it is best explained that I (my soul/mind) is what makes my body mine. It makes best sense to say that I am not identical to my body but that I posses a property of having a body, I am a soul.
As for open and closed systems, the mind benefits from being more closed actually. Ours is an information society, and as such, people are apt to try to "eat" way, way, more information than they can actually digest/process. It has to make sense to be more closed to information and process what's already there in your autopoietic system (Maturana). The brain has to have energy and as such is an open system. The mind can be more or less closed to information and organization and is very different from the brain in this way. Most people need to close their minds more, especially to organization. Folks that frequent this board are like me, no doubt, in that we read all the time but could probably think more if we weren't reading. Sometimes it's better to stop reading and start thinking and writing within your closed system of organization and information (to see what's there asking to be processed).
A strict belief in materialism and that we are exclusively material beings is conducive to severe neuroses. The domain of mind is invisible. This is about as obvious as it is overlooked. Also, more correct me if I'm wrong, but a tightly connected brain is usually associated with less efficient processes of mind. An unhealthy brain has to do more work than a healthy one, and I'd assume uses more energy therein, or wastes more energy. As the mind self organizes and informs, and is more efficient, there may actually be a negative correlation with energy in the brain. However you look at it, it is hard to convince me brain is not quite a different system than mind, though it is obviously part of a more global apparatus of psychophysical parallelism.
Mind has no extension in space and may exist in a more or less dilated time. A thought is nowhere, in the quantum vacuum as far as we know. Thoughts aren't subject to measurement in their primordial fettle. So far as we know, it is only the brain which needs energy; perhaps thoughts do not need energy and perhaps neither does the information and organization of mind require energy. Because a thought itself isn't measurable, it is impossible to know.
How do you survive in an environment without having some true knowledge of the environment? Is seems to me that your survival is the best catalyst for seeking and acquiring truth. Its no different than if God exists. You need to learn the truth in order to save your soul.
In general, in our long prehistory, false beliefs regarding important practical matters meant premature death by starvation or predation. So, in general, evolution aimed at true beliefs, for survival.
But yes, sometimes delusion was adaptive, and was selected-for, and that's eminently demonstrated by the social-behavior of the species of apes that humans are.
Additionally, our ancestors on the Savanna often didn't have time for thorough analysis, and so "quick-and-dirty" estimates of what was true were often needed. Those quick-and-dirty decisions are part of our instinct, and tend to produce bad societal results.
You seem to be saying that all of us, as apes evolved for survival instead of truth, have very poor credentials for making true statements.
Well yes, you can observe that from the presumably instinct-driven behavior of the various trolls that i've been replying to in various topics at these forums.
No argument there!
Societally, the great social scientists P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields explained everything:
P.T. Barnum explained that there's a sucker born every minute.
W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break."
You needn't look any farther for an explanation for humanity's societal situation, and evidence regarding its "hope" for improvement.
You can also observe instinct-over-truth in the behavior of Western academic philosophers, who seem to be responding to a relentless instinctive drive to creatively, delusionally, make things complicated, so that they'll continue having philosophical "issues" to publish about.
You know, "Publish-Or-Perish".
And yours too, of course.
Are we all mere fallible humans? Sure.
That's why we should expect people to give some verification, justification, for their claims.
I've tried to give justifications and verifications for my metaphysical suggestions.
No metaphysics can be proved. That statement goes back at least to Nagarjuna, who wrote in India during late Roman times.
But the metaphysics that i propose, which i call "Skepticism" makes no assumptions, and posits no brute-facts.
By the Principle of Parsimony, it beats Physicalism, for example, and at least nearly every other metaphysical proposal.
As for my statements about humans being nothing other than animals, and my statement that each of is is nothing other than the animal, the body, that's parsimonious too, because it's the simplest explanation that's consistent with our own experience, and makes no assumptions, and posits no brute-facts.
So yes, we're all fallible humans. So hold us all to a high standard of justification for our philosophical claims.
Michael Ossipoff
1
I hasten to emphasize that I'm not calling everyone I've communicated with here "trolls".
Far from it!
Most people where are serious and sincere about what they're discussing.
When I say "trolls", I'm specifically only referring to the few people whom I've explicitly referred to as such in my postings.
Michael Ossipoff
I still don't get this. One can't just call their metaphysical concept the word that already has a specific meaning. It's like proposing a metaphysics asserting the existence of a mind outside the brain and calling it "Existentialism." Not only is one taking sovereignty over a word that has established meaning for many, but they are greatly confusing the discourse as there will be no shared meaning for the used word.
However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so.
No, it isn't.
The word "skepticism" is defined in every dictionary.
My metaphysics rejects and avoids assumptions and brute-facts.
Rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-factsis skepticism, by the usual dictionary definition.
No, the ancient Greek philosophers didn't have a monopoly on that word. It's in every dictionary, and my metaphysics is skepticism, as that word is defined in dictionaries.
This is a brief answer, just for now.
Maybe, when I re-read your post tomorrow, I'll find more to reply to, and will have time to do so.
(Right now, I don't have time to write more)
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Thanatos Sand
I fully defined and described Skepticism.
...in the my initial post about it, and in subsequent posts.
But i welcome questions and objections. Specific ones only, please.
Michael Ossipoff
Yes, but it's not defined by the very different, arbitrary definition you give the term.
That's fine, but that's not what skepticism means.
[b]No, it's not; It's your arbitrary made-up definition of it. Here are the standard definitions of skepticism and they are not the same as yours.
[i]"1
: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3
: doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)"[/i][/b]
Nobody said anything about Greek philosophers, so that's irrelevant. And, as I showed, there already are standard definitions of skepticism. Neither you, nor anybody else, gets to make up new ones for the word.
No, you took the word "skepticism," which already has established definitions, and you arbitrarily attached your made-up definition to it.
I've made specific and correct objections in this post and my two posts before it.
First, let me explain to you that, to fit a word's definition, a meaning doesn't have to fit all of a dictionary's definitions of that word. It only needs to fit one of them.
My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.
"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"
And what does "incredulity" mean?
"The quality of being incredulous".
What does "incredulous" mean?
"Unwilling to accept what is offered as true. Not credulous."
What does "credulous" mean?
"Ready to believe, especially on slight or uncertain evidence"
Now, when I mention "brute-facts", you can pounce on that, as not mentioned in the definition of skepticism.
But a brute-fact is obviously someting offered to be true, something that people are asked to believe with no evidence whatsoever (look at the definition of "credulous").
What does "assumption" mean?
"In Merriam Webster, the dictionary you quoted, an assumption is a taking for granted that something is true.
Houghton-Mifflin defines "assumption" as:
"Something taken to be true without proof or demonstration."
Obviously a "brute-fact" is well within the meaning of "assumption".
My metaphysics rejects and avoids assumptions.
In other words, my metaphysics is unwilling to accept what other metaphysicses offer as true without demonstration of proof. ...It is characterized by an unwillingness to believe without evidence.
In other words, the metaphysics that i call "Skepticism" is skepticism, by that word's dictionary definition. ...as I said.
Michael Ossipoff
No. You were saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that I call Skepticism. Here's what you said:
Quoting Thanatos Sand
In that paragraph, you aren't arguing about the propriety of my use of a word. You're saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that i call Skepticism.
I defined it thoroughly.
The correctness of my name "Skepticism" is a separate issue, and one that i addressed in my post immediately before this one.
Michael Ossipoff
But I also must add that if one is naturalist (I am not sure of you) must face arguments like Boltzmann brain, and A. Plantingas Evolutionary argument against naturalism.
I am really clad to finally find a place where to cordially dialog with reasonable and thinking people:
Speaking for myself, I'm not a Naturalist (...which is basically a euphemism for "Physicalist" or "Materialist"), or an Atheist.
Metaphysically, I'm an Idealist.
Michael Ossipoff
I know, and your definition doesn't fit any of them.
No, it is not, because--as everyone can see--your definition is much narrower than number 1, since you limit it to "brute-facts." Definition #1 does not.
Oh, boy...there are dictionaries on-line.
That's irrelevant since brute-facts arent' the only things mentioned in that definition. So, you are wrong to limit it to them. So, I was right to pounce on it and show you were/are wrong.
See my last paragraph to see why you are wrong here, as well.
And, as I have repeatedly shown, that is not enough to stand as one of the definitions for skepticism.
In other words, you have made up your own definition for "skepticism" as a way to free yourself from the demands of the definition, but usurp the benefits of the word's common meaning. That's cheating. I suggest you change your metaphysics name to Ossipoffism.
No, I was saying exactly what I was saying right above, Don't take my words and say I was saying something else. When you do that you are acting crazy.
[b]Now, you're dishonestly and deceptively leaving key parts out of my argument. That shows even you know you're wrong. Here's my full statement:
[i]"I still don't get this. One can't just call their metaphysical concept the word that already has a specific meaning. It's like proposing a metaphysics asserting the existence of a mind outside the brain and calling it "Existentialism." Not only is one taking sovereignty over a word that has established meaning for many, but they are greatly confusing the discourse as there will be no shared meaning for the used word.
However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so."[/i]
So, you lied when you said you didn't just define it. I said you were giving a false definition of the word "skepticism" while keeping the original word and its value. So, you're not only making false definitions of words now; you're lying in your erroneous arguments. Not impressive.[/b]
I'd said:
--Michael Ossipoff
You replied:
Incorrect. I don't limit "it" to brute-facts. I said, "assumptions and brute-facts".
Because it was obvious that you'd pounce on "brute-facts", because that term isn't found in the dictionary definition of skepticism, I clarified that brute-facts are assumptions, whose avoidance suits the dictionary definition of skepticism.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
See above.
Your only argument that my metaphysics isn't skeptical, depends on your seizing-upon "brute-facts".
With that argument answered, you have no argument against my statement that the metaphysics that I call Skepticism, is skeptical, and is skepticism itslef...as that word is defined in the dictionary.
Michael Ossipoff
Then your metaphysics is no longer a perfect fit for definition #1, since reincarnation would rest upon assumptions.
See my last answer. It corrects you here, too.
Sorry, but reincarnation isn't part of, or assumed by, Skepticism.
All I said was that reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism.
But, as I said, reincarnation isn't part of, or assumed by, Skepticism.
You're grasping at straws.
Michael Ossipoff
I never said reincarnation was part of or assumed by Skepticism. You really are reading poorly. I said reincarnation would rest upon assumptions, so your own definition of Skepticism wou'dnt allow it. And reincarnation isn't consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism
So, the only one grasping at straws is you.
You're free, however to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism any time.
Considering it's not, this should be a hoot.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Suit yourself. I've had my say on that matter, and you're of course free to reach your own conclusions.
But that question doesn't bear on the fact that Skepticism is skeptical, and is skepticism itself, by that word's dictionary definition.
Michael Ossipoff
As I said, I've had my say about that, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.
Michael Ossipoff
You've had a lot of erroneous say and failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. That's hardly surprising.
OK...but that sure doesn't show that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, skepticism,..which makes sense, since it's not.
No, you haven't just had your say, you've completely failed to back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. And you fail to do so again.
No, let's not imply that I refuse to answer you. If you want to quote a particular statement or conclusion of mine, quoted from a post of mine on reincarnation, and if you tell us exactly what you think is wrong with that statement or conclusion, then I'll be glad to answer you.
But, if not, that's fine too, because, as I said, I've had my say about reincarnation, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.
Someone started a topic in which people were talking about how there could be reincarnation. I decided to add my comments to that discussion.
Michael Ossipoff
I didn't imply anything. You have absolutely refused to answer me and back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. So, since you have failed to do so, I cannot tell you what is exactly wrong with it. Try and back up that false claim and I will.
And as I have said, you may have "had your say," but you have still--like four times now--failed to back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. Since it's a false claim, I'm not surprised.
And you have also made a false claim that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, which you have failed to support numerous times.
Thank you for your honesty.
Michael Ossipoff
"I didn't imply anything. [i]You have absolutely refused to answer me and back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. So, since you have failed to do so, I cannot tell you what is exactly wrong with it. Try and back up that false claim and I will[/i]."
I can't tell what is exactly wrong with a statement of defense until you make that statement since there are many ways to make a statement. I'm sorry you never learned that fact. So, since you clearly cannot
show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism, I cannot show what is exactly wrong with it. I can only show what is wrong with it..
Thank you for your dishonesty or your insufficient education....:)
Well, what i said was that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.
But since Skepticism is skepticism, then it could be said that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism too.
Look, I'm not interested in trying to convince you about that. I've already said what i meant to say, and I'm willing to answer you if you have a specific disagreement with a specific quote.
If not, I assure you that that's fine too.
I'd say that we're done here, and that this conversation has reached its end.
Michael Ossipoff
Feel free to, but only if you want to.
Michael Ossipoff
No, it's not and you have laughably failed many times to show how it is.
That makes absolutely no sense since no definition of skepticism is consistent with reincarnation. You are truly grasping at straws.
LOL. Almost all of my threads have been specific disagreement with specific quotes of yours. Again, you fail to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism. Since it's not, that's hardly surprising.
Maybe the one true thing you've said this thread.
I will once you actually show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism, first. You clearly don't want, or can't, do so..:)
By the way, here's my actual quote:
Quoting Thanatos Sand
You keep quoting me as saying that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism (with a lower-case "s").
What I said was that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism (with an upper-case "s", because I'm referring to the metaphysics that I propose).
That's a misquote--a common troll-tactic.
But, as i already said, I emphasize that Skepticism is skepticism, as I showed earlier, from the dictionary definitions, so the misquote isn't so inaccurate.
But it's still a misquote. Your consistent use of the misquote-tactic shows your troll-intent.
Michael Ossipoff
And you, yourself, said your definition of skepticism went along with the official first one of going against assumptions, so I quoted and addressed you perfectly.
Now, you're moving away from that and are trying to attach your "metaphysics" to the already established and defined word Skepticism that would not allow reincarnation.
So, you're being an irrational troll.
Ps. You said we were done. So I guess you lied, too
Quite so. Though a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be inconsistent with skepticism, reincarnation, itself, isn't ruled-out by skepticism.
(And, here, I'm using "skepticism" with a lower-case "s", the common noun)
I've discussed, at the reincarnation topic, how reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, the metaphysics that I propose.
Thanatos thinks that there's something lacking or incorrect in what I said in that discussion, but he can't quite say what it is.
So he's huffing, puffing, hissing, and making other angry-noises.
Michael Ossipoff
And the only one making angry noises--out of many orifices-- has clearly been you...:)
Ps... you make your loudest, most ridiculous noise when you crazily scream that you can add your own "metaphysics" to a pre-existing word.
You're confusing separate statements. Yes, a belief in, or an assumption of, reincarnation would be contrary to skepticism.
But no, you haven't shown that reincarnation, itself, is ruled out by skepticism.
("skepticism", with a lower-case "s", the common-noun)
Quoting Thanatos Sand
As I said, a belief in, or assumption of, reincarnation would be un-skeptical. ...as would any unproved belief or assumption.
But you haven't shown that skepticism rules out the possibility of reincarnation itself.
(...and that's what it would mean to say that they're incompatible)
Michael Ossipoff
I never said that reincarnation was ruled out by skepticism, again you misquote me like a troll. I showed the definitions of the word skepticism and how they are incompatible with reincarnation. You, however still have failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, as you erroneously claim. It's gotten comical.
No, I was telling a reality intelligent people have already figured out. Of course, you haven't. But that's typical for Ossipoff-his-rocker. Since there is as little evidence of reincarnation as there is existence of God and Satan, my statement was true. You're just slow on grasping that.
LOL, more like no doubt you have no idea what "natural" or "supernatural" means. You have well shown words are difficult for you.
So, you agree reincarnation is not consistent with skepticism. Good. And skepticism isn't about ruling things out. Again, your struggle with words is astonishing.
if you were a skeptic you would not make such an assertion. The skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all. We have no knowledge, all we have are beliefs. And since beliefs, in the absence of any actual knowledge, are supported only by other beliefs, the skeptic says we have no warrant even for thinkig one possibility is more likely than another. so all imaginable states of affiras are equally compatible, and all beliefs equally incompatible. with pyrrhonian skepticism.
I am a skeptic and you are clearly not. Since that is not what the skeptic proper contends at all. I think you mean the Socratic.
No, the skeptic does not say that at all, and you haven't given any evidence that that's what real skeptics think.
Go and do some study; I'm not here to educate you. :-}
So, get on it.
You're either a troll or a fuckwit, dude, and I'm not at all skeptical about that.
And you said skeptics believe you can know nothing, so you just contradicted yourself, no matter how wrong you are...:)
I bet you say that to all the boys and girls! And no, I haven't contradicted myself since I never said I was a skeptic. Apparently in your trollish excitement or state of fuckwitted confusion you forgot to read carefully! >:O
Really? Please indicate where I did that by qoting what I said and explaing exactly how it contradicts something else I said.
So, as you said in your ridiculously inaccurate definition, "the skeptic proper contends that we cannot know anything at all.
But in the quote above, you clearly indicate a skeptic would know it is doubtful that I am a "troll" or a fuckwit. So, while the smart skeptic would doubt that, you embarrassingly contradicted yourself.
Well I am not so sure that it is self-evident what is meant by "material beings". It seems clear that we share a very close affiliation with our material aspect. I think all life differs from inert material, yet all life evolves out of material. I think that life, spirituality and "soul" must be possible states of matter. States which can become actual, a kind of panpsychism. Not as a theory of universal consciousness attributable to all matter, but as a property of matter that has been configured by evolution in a certain manner, so it can be a separate, self replicating, and mortal being.
No contradiction there because although a skeptic may doubt you are a fuckwit (or quite likely both since trolls are fuckwits by definition) I am under no such obligation since, I never claimed to be a skeptic. A skeptic could certainly affirm that you seem to be a fuchwit, in any case. Since you are a fuckwit either way (whether troll or not) I am guessing you will make the same objection again.
if you were smart you would look at the way most of your exchanges with others end up and take note. But perhaps you are enjoying yourself trollishly. If you don't say something interesting this time you will be ignored.
And now, nobody will be skeptical of your being a fool as well, since I never said anything about your obligation to be a skeptic. I correctly showed how your usage of "skeptic' countered each other. So, the fuckwit is clearly you, and no intelligent person would be skeptical of you.
If you were smart, and you're clearly not, you'd get an actual education before you engaged intelligent, educated people like myself. And the only one who has been trolling has been you. So, you should really take note of that.
Natural selection isn't random. It is a lawful process that filters out random mutations that can't compete against better methods of navigating your environment, finding food and mates, distinguishing between predators and non-predators, etc. the better you are at making distinctions and mentally representing the environment, the more offspring you will have that have those same capabilities. Eventually, the compounding of new, better mutations on top of what organisms already have adds even more accuracy to knowledge of the world. This is how a mindless, yet lawful, process, brings about improved accuracy of organisms mental representations of their world. It isn't perfect (like seeing a bent straw in the water when the stick is actually straight and seeing mirages) and that is the hallmark of natural selection. It is what we would expect from a mindless, purposeless process. It isn't what we would expect if God did it. So the imperfections are actually evidence for natural selection and evidence against God doing it.
Natural Law, the God of atheism that has made scientists the chosen ones. Where do I go to pay homage? Science seeks homage, doesn't it? The holders of Truth?
Might I suggest a course on Greek drama with emphasis on hubris.
The simple truth, as spoken to me by Natural Laws.
Thanatos Sand is both of those things. I'd bet that even the most skeptical of the Greek Skeptics would unequivocally assert that.
The forum guidelines say that trolls will be banned. Thanatos Sand is the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll.
There's a widening consensus about that.
So why is he still allowed to post here?
Michael Ossipoff
You're right, it is the simple Truth you made a sophomoric retort. As to my education, I am well educated. So, you're sophomoric and hubristic, quite an accomplishment.
No, the ones who are both of those things are you and John, as proven by trolling statements like the one below:
This is pure trolling on your part and you do it a lot.
And the post of yours I just re-posted shows the most typical, standard, obvious and consistent textbook example of a troll is you, and no consensus is needed for that.
Ok, one last time.
When Thanatos would post something that could be considered a reasonable question, I'd decided to return to answering him. But that always turns out to be a bad idea, and just encourages a troll.
But I'll reply just this one last time:
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Oh, excuse me, Your Troll-ness.
So you're saying that skepticism doesn't rule out reincarnation, but reincarnation is incompatible with skepticism. :)
Actually, you haven't shown that. You've merely been continually repeating it--not quite the same thing.
I discussed that in the Reincarnation topic. There, I told why and how reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism (capital "S", the metaphysics that I propose.
Because Skepticism's rejection of assumptions perfectly matches the dictionary definition of skepticism, then yes, you could also say that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism (lower-case "s", the common noun).
Now, if Thanatos wants to say that I didn't really show that, how could I be expected to answer that claim? Should I repeat everything I said at the Reincarnation topic? No, more realistically, I just refer Thanatos to that discussion in that topic.
But if Thanatos wants to claim that, in that discussion in that topic, I didn't really show that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism, then he needs to say where the error or mis-statement is, among my statements and conclusions in that topic. Surely there'd be at least one error or mis-statement, if Thanatos is right.
I addressed the matter. Any claim that there's something wrong with what I said needs to specify a particular fault or error in my statements or conclusions.
And then, having many-times repeated that I didn't show what I claimed to show, Thanatos takes it another step and says that he showed that the opposite is true.
No, I'm not going to discuss religion with a troll.
But the matter of whether or not there's direct experiential evidence for reincarnation is irrelevant to the matter of whether it's consistent with Skepticism. (or skepticism).
As I've already explained (to no avail) to Thanatos, a belief or assumption would be unskeptical. But Skepticism doesn't make an assumption of reincarnation, or assert a belief in reincarnation.
And, as a matter of fact, there is evidence for reincarnation:
Reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, the uniquely parsimonious and skeptical metaphysics.
Why did I post to the Reincarnation topic?
There was obviously interest in reincarnation. So, for that reason, the fact that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism would count in Skepticism's favor, and might attract favorable attention to Skepticism.
I'd said:
His Troll-ness replies:
No, I said that a belief or assumption of reincarnation would be uin-skeptical.
At the Reincarnation topic, I've told how and why reincarnation is consistent with, and even implied by Skepticism. The metaphysics that I call Skepticism is skepticism itself.
So yes, reincarnation is consistent with skepticism.
I've been inviting you to specify what, in particular, was wrong with what i said at the Reincarnation topic, and I've been offering to answer any well-specified objection to a specified statement or conclusion.
I now withdraw that offer
Though I've repeatedly forgiven, and given Thanatos another chance, when he posted what could be construed as a reasonable question, the futility of answering that troll at all has become too evident to ignore.
No more replies to Troll Thanatos.
Michael Ossipoff
However what I re-posted of yours in my last post was pure personal-attack trolling. So, you're showing great hypocrisy as well, Troll Ossipoff.
LOL, I agree with you of course, but since banning is an act reserved for the moderators, and I personally can't be bothered to bring little ol' Death Dirt to their attention, I'll just ignore him or her. Ignoring is equally effective if practiced with due diligence.
I think banning can only be done by administrators.
Without it, Ignoring is the only remedy that's available. But I couldn't resist suggesting that banning is called-for in this most blatant and undeniable troll-instance.
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Rich
Absolutely not. If you aren't an administrator, I won't ask you to read the discussion that would be needed to support this, but Thanatos was habitually insisting that I didn't show a conclusion that I set out to demonstrate.
Then, if that's so, there must be some error or fallacy among my statements and conclusions, in the posts to which Thanatos is referring.
But, when invited him to specify a particular statement or conclusion in my posts that contains that error or fallacy, he said, "No, you just didn't show it." But, if I claimed to show something, then there'd be a fallacy or false statement somewhere on the way to that conclusion, in my posts.
Obviously, it's too easy just say, "You didn't show it". How would someone answer that charge? A repetition of the discussion that I already posted? But that's already available to Thanatos, and wouldn't change anything. The answer, of course, is that, if someone says, "You didn't show it", and says that the burden isn't on him to show what's wrong with where you claimed to show it, then there's no way to answer that vague charge.
That's a common, definitive, troll-tactic. Repetition without any verification or justification.
Another typical, standard troll tactic is the habitual replying to something that wasn't said.
As someone else pointed out, there are only two possibilities:
1. Thanatos is a typical, incredibly-sloppy &/or dishonest troll.
2. Thanatos is sincere and honest, but he's quite delusional....delusional to a degree that's problematic to the decorum, order and integrity of the forum.
Either way, he's a detriment and a liability to the forum..
Michael Ossipoff
Oh really.
How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,
Why is there that independently, fundamentally existent physical world, that comprises all of Reality?
It's just a brute-fact, right?
That's the same as saying that Physicalism can't explain it.
The metaphysics that I propose, Skepticism, doesn't need or make any assumptions, or posit any brute fact(s).
Michael Ossipoff
This is not trolling; it is called disagreeing with you, and you didn't show that conclusion you set out to demonstrate...and saying that is not "trolling" either. We are allowed to criticize or disagree with peoples opinions or modes of expressing them.
This is not trolling either. It's called a disagreement in both content and modes of expression.
This is too unclear for me to say what it is, but it is also not trolling, and is not an accurate depiction of what occurred.
Even if that were true, the only one doing such repetition was you, so you just identified yourself as a troll. I, myself, saw your repetition as just struggle.
Now all of this above is trolling and untrue. The only incredibly dishonest, sloppy, and delusional one has been you, and detrimental to the order and integrity of the forum...and that is when your posts are even semi-coherent, which is rare. You are just resorting to immature personal attacks here, which is even worse then your misrepresenting me as you did above.
So, if you are so obsessed with cleaning up trolling in the forum, I suggest you clean up your own. It has certainly been a detriment and liability to this thread.
"How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,"
Nothing explains that. What makes you think it is explicable?
You can hardly demand the answer to such a question that nothing can explain.
"Why is there that independently, fundamentally existent physical world, that comprises all of Reality?"
You are asking a phantom question. Why do you think it is "independent". Independent of what exactly?
Physicalism is a description of what is the case. There is no where you can stand outside of it to view it independently. I think, once you have divested yourself of your disabling dualism you might be better equipped to understand the questions you are asking.
Not. Physicalism is a description of what can be measured physically.
Havce you nothing else to offer?
I agree. Physicalism just states that everything is physical. Anything that exists or may be discovered is physical. (Just as Hinduism claims all religions are Hindu). Physicalism explains nothing and is not even a philosophy. It is a point of view.
The flip side of physicalism, which I embrace, is that everything is mind. I guess my approach might explain a bit more since it does explain the nature of discussion (to share ideas been minds) and the purpose for life, i.e. to experiment, explore, learn, and share.
Quoting Wayfarer
It's my understanding that the physical world is composed of things that have a causal influence on each other. It must be that things that have a causal influence on each other are made of the same substance. If the physical world has a causal influence on our minds and our minds have a causal influence on the physical world, then it must be that they are all of the same substance - physical, mental, information, or whatever we decided to call it (and does it really matter?).
This would be the case if mind/physical were given equal status.
In some cases mind is transformed into some illusion (I guess this the essence of materialism) , thus giving it less status - I suppose. This kind of thinking is hard for me to get my arms around. I prefer to think of physical being more substantial and mind being less substantial but - and this is a big but - mind being the motivator, the impetus. In this manner, the living body is a fully holistic living body.
Whether or not you think there's such a thing as eternal or timelessness influences how you think of the mind-body problem (inasmuch as truly, nothing ever happens that isn't in this moment; yesterdays and tomorrows either were now or will be now when they happened or will happen). And if every event (past and future) is somehow superimposed on top of itself in a way we can never comprehend, it further makes sense that psychophysical parallelism and preestablished harmony may be at work in some hard to understand or impossible to understand way.
To our limited selective mechanisms, it may only appear that one event causes another; the fact we have to make observations to try to understand the universe is possibly an indicator of our limited understanding of causality. If there is a universal mind, absolute and omniscient, it doesn't have to make any observations, and so we are closer to it when we aren't making observations or trying to understand it. And indeed it is true when I'm zoning out or meditating, or in a state of deep sleep, time flies, the subjective nature of time is more obvious when making fewer observations. Causality itself comes into question.
One local event is causing another all around the universe far beyond any isolated local causality. Even though we have a small perspective of our own lives and activities, within a local sphere of causality, it has to be remembered that in a way, everything causes everything when nonlocality is introduced. Which is in fact what is happening. Everything informs everything as though it were one unfathomably monumental event. We tend to get stuck in trying to apply local causality to the big picture or to infinitude. Splitting the universe into pieces is done by human observers, not by the universe itself.
Only physicalism can answer how it is that your mind can be altered by drugs. If the mind is note physical, then you have a job on your hands to say how this works.
Isn't that what I just said. Physicalism is like Hinduism (everything is Hindu), everything is physical. It's a point of view. If you can name it, experience it, measure it, think of it, whatever, it is physical.
Quoting charleton
Physicalism simply says that mind is physical, drugs are physical, chemicals are physical, molecules are physical, atoms are physical, elections are physical, electron clouds are physical, quantum it's physical, and it's all affecting each other.
Ok. Just replace physical with mind and it's all the same, only mind becomes the impetus.
There is not an isomorphic correlation between chemicals, brains scans, TMS, shocking the brain and a thought. We can experience far more thoughts and qualia subjectively than can be measured physically. To limit mind to what can be measured physically is to do away with subjective reports of inner cognition. Subjective experience is still entirely impervious to physicalism, thank goodness, or my mind would be an fMRI. Whatever data you have and are trying to say IS the thought of the subject is a very strange view.
It gets tricky here. A neurologist may simply say that a thought are some little neurons going off here or there. Watch the TV show Superhuman where the resident neurologist explains everything that is happening by neurons going bang, bang, bang here and there. That is the scientific explanation for all things mind related. Sometimes he proclaims it is complicated and definitely Superhuman.
How does a thought equate to a mass of neurons? How is the chasm crossed, is a philosophical discussion not a scientific one. What I am suggesting is that the motivator of the discussion is an active, experimenting, learning, evolving mind.
"According to the law of identity, if A=B then what is true of A is true of B and vice versa."
That's worth thinking about. Suppose Jim is a burglar who has not been detected. The police know the burglar committed the burglary. But they don't know that Jim committed the burglary. So something is true of the burglar that is not true of Jim. And Jim is identical with the burglar.
.
I'd said
.
.
You replied:
.
.
That's called a "brute-fact". As I said, Physicalism posits a brute-fact.
.
.
Well, for one thing, the fact that Skepticism (the metaphysics that I propose) explains it.
.
.
No, but you can ask and answer a question that nothing in Physicalism can explain.
.
I agree that the inexplicable-ness of the physical world is a basic tenet of Physicalism.
.
As I said, the metaphysics that I call "Skepticism" explains it.
.
Skepticism, as I said, doesn't need or use any assumptions, or posit any brute-fact(s).
.
I’d asked:
.
.
You replied:
.
.
That would be a good question to ask of a Physicalist. You aren’t a Physicalist, are you.
.
According to Materialism or Physicalism, the physical world is independently, fundamentally existent, and comprises all of Reality.
.
You said:
.
.
Every metaphysics, including Physicalism, is a description of what it says is the case.
.
.
Maybe you’re confusing or conflating Physics with Physicalism.
.
Physics seeks to describe the physical world, is workings, the interactions among its parts.
.
Physicalism is a metaphysics that says that our physical world is independently, fundamentally existent. …that this physical world is simply what is, and comprises Reality.
.
“Independently” of what? Independently of anything at all.
.
I have no quarrel with physics.
.
Physicalism posits a brute-fact, and that’s a demerit for a metaphysics.
.
.
And what Dualism might that be :)
.
I don’t advocate a Dualism. The metaphysics that I propose, Skepticism, is an Idealism.
.
.
No, I asked you only one question.
.
And it wasn’t a complicated question. I asked you how Physicalism explains the existence of the physical world, and you answered that it doesn’t and can’t.
.
I agree with your answer. You’re saying that the physical world is a brute-fact, in Physicalism, and I agree with that too.
.
Thank you.
.
I define Skepticism, my metaphysical proposal, in a topic entitled “A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics”, in the “Metaphysics and Epistemology” forum at this website.
.
Later in that topic-thread, I further discuss Skepticism, answering objections to it.
.
Michael Ossipoff
You're confusing Physicalism with Physics.
Physics seeks to describe this physical world, its workings, the interactions of its parts.
Phsyicalism is a metaphysics that says that this physical world is independently, fundamentally, existent. ...and is simply what is, and is all of reality.
Michael Ossipoff
This is what you might call a brute fact. I would call a belief.
There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical, but then again this is my POV of physicalism.
Certainly a brute-fact is a belief, for someone who believes in the metaphysics that posits that brute-fact.
Yes, and that the physical world exists independent of anything else, as the fundamental existent.
Michael Ossipoff
, but then again this is my POV of physicalism.[/quote]
What makes them equal is their causal influence on each other. We observe physical things interacting and we observe the mind interacting with physical things and vice versa. I don't see any inequality - just a bunch of stuff interacting with each other.
I think it is more of an indicator of the nature of knowledge/understanding itself.
Quoting Anthony
An omniscient being doesn't need to make observations because it's mental representation of reality would mirror reality itself. The question is, "how did it's mental representation become a mirror of reality without observing (learning), as that seems to be the nature of understanding/knowledge?" Another questions would be, "what form does an omniscient being's knowledge take?" We understand the world in colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, etc. This is the form our knowledge takes - the form of the information that comes through our senses (qualia).
Quoting AnthonyIt seems like it has to do with our limited ability to conceptualize extremes in time and space. Over enough time and space, everything does have a causal influence on each other, eventually.
The way I've heard it distinguished (sometimes, not necessarily) is that Materialism involves what Ossipoff is denying: that material is fundamental, and that the existence of the material is thus some sort of what is being called a brute fact. Physicalism just say's we're physical things, that people are built of the material and nothing immaterial. It does not necessarily assert that the physical is fundamental, or even objectively existent.
Materialism would perhaps care to address that question, but your question assumes that there is something, physical or not. So how do you explain that there is whatever you assume there is?
It seems to be a contingent truth, putting it in the realm of modal logic which requires a frame. I (whatever I am) am an existing state a frame which we'll call the universe. Existing in the universe is not the same as existing, so I (a physicalist in this context) make no such assertion of that generalization.
In a dualist interpretation the question remains what is at the boundary? How does mind cause an action on a physical? What creates the impetus for matter to cause some action of the mind.
My own preference is to think of the two as one and the same, with different substantiality, sort of like the difference between the quanta wave and the electron (the electron being a wave perturbation).
Yes, even within metaphysical Physicalism, there are several varieties of Physicalism, the most extreme (and clearly-stated, even if wrong) one of which is Eliminative Physicalism..
Yes.
Yes, that's science-of-mind Physicalism, as distinct from metaphysical Physicalism. I've heard Physicalism defined in both of those two ways. Those are two meanings for Physicalism.
How does metaphysical Physicalism differ from Materialism? It's merely an update of it, to include not just matter, but other physical entities like fields, the matter-waves of quantum-mechanics, etc.
Yes, science-of-mind Physicalism is just saying that we're physical, we're the body, and I, in a loose general way, agree with that.
But I doubt that I really agree with any of the versions of science-of-mind Physicalism:
Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists:
Some Physicalists, believing in the mind as a separate metaphysical substance, try too explain away what they've fictitiously posited and believe in, by saying that mind is something that "supervenes" on the brain (Actually there's nothing to do that "supervening"), or in terms of epiphenomena, or by the mumbo-jumbo of emergent phenomena.
All of that is mystical, spiritual, fictitious balderdash.
Eliminative Physicalists, as a type of philosophy-of-mind Physicalists, agree with me on that. Does that mean that they really agree with me? I doubt it, because they seem to take it a bit farther:
They seem to say that the experience, the point-of-view, of the animal is illusory and fictitious, and that the only valid point of view is the objective 3rd-person point-of-view of a Realist's world, in which there's no such thing as an animal's point of view.
That's ridiculous. I say that the animal's point-of-view is the only really valid one, because that's exactly what our life-experience possibility-stories are about.
I'd said:
— Michael Ossipoff
You replied:
Glad you asked.
Yes, here's what there is:
******************************************
There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts relating hypothetical quantity-values (They're called "physical laws"), abstract logical facts, and mathematical theorems, and hypothetical if-then facts relating these various things..
...systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts.
******************************************
It has been asked, "Where are there these facts?
Someone answered:
If there were no facts, then the fact that there are no facts would be a fact.
Someone at these forums answered:
"Alright, then couldn't there be just one fact that says, 'There are no facts, except for the fact that there are no other facts
For one thing, that one peculiarly discriminatory fact would call for explanation, and, it seems to me, would qualify as a brute-fact.
Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above?
Do such systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts need justification or explanation?
I say they don't.
Look, these systems of inter-referring hypotheticals have no meaning or application except in reference to eachother. They don't have, or need, any existence, reality or meaning outside of their own inter-referring context.
Therefore, it would be meaningless to speak of some global fact "There are no facts, except the one fact that there are no facts" that would apply to the system in asterisks above. ...because that system neither has nor needs any existence outside of its own context, among the facts that are in that inter-referring system.
So that's why the infinitely-many inter-referring hypothetifal systems, whose description is enclosed in asterisks above, can, do, and must exist--each only in its own context.
They don't need explanation, because they're inevitable.
Each of our life-experience possibility-stories is such a system.
No, the existence of the inter-referring systems of hypothetical facts that are described above, in the passage that's enclosed in asterisks isn't contingent. It's inevitable. It's inevitable that there are infinitely-many such systems, including the one that is your own life-experience possibility-story.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael still doesn't understand he can't attach the "metaphysics" that he supposes to the already-defined word skepticism. Language doesn't work that way
Also, he is mis-using brute-fact, which actually means: "something that cannot be explained."
Yes. It a list of ambiguous terms that describe a supposedly other list of ambiguous terms each of which would be a brute fact assuming they they could actually be identified in some sort of unambiguous manner.
The issue with your metaphysics is that it is a laundry list of ambiguous brute facts. Impregnable yet also unintelligible.
The way to eliminate facts is just to understand that there is no reason to even use such a concept. All we have are beliefs with a varying amount of intensity and consensus. The word fact is used to give gravitas to a belief.
See above.
Brute facts are facts that are unexplained. A fact that is inevitable isn't brute, because it's explained by its inevitability.
I told why the infinitely-many systems of inter-referring hypothetical facts are inevitable.
If you ask why they "are", I answer that they don't and needn't have any existence, applicability, reference or meaning outside of their own context, within a particular such inter-referring system.
See above.
You want brute-facts?
Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?
Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind?
Michael Ossipoff
Off-point of me to comment, but you seem to dislike similar assessments of your own views. Just sayin..
I cut most of the meat out, because the statement began with "there are" which is sort of my point. The rest I actually kind of get, and approve more than you know, despite the fact that we seem to have built such different towers on such similar foundations.
Not so. If there were no facts, then the fact above simply would not be. That's not even a paradox.
It has no frame in which it has meaning, so the potential truth of it doesn't exist either.
That's my take anyway.
It's an idea, that all it is. A wonderful conception in my opinion. And the reason I use it is because all the pieces of the puzzle for nicely and it is useful and practical idea. I never claim any facts, because I think the term is used to state a strong belief. My beliefs are moderate because they are constantly changing.
If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system which you may share with others. My guess is you have very strong beliefs which is why you considered them facts.
I’d said:
.
.
You replied:
.
.
Shall I assume that that’s sarcasm?
.
If, by saying that what I said was unbiased, you meant that it’s biased, then in what sense was it biased? Unfair because I’m pre-judging those Physicalists, based on prior experiences and opinions, instead of fairly evaluating their claims?
.
But doesn’t that presume a knowledge of my motives, or how I arrived at that opinion.
.
For example, when you say that the mind “supervenes on” the brain, you’ve already assumed that there’s some separate entity, separate from the body, called the mind.
.
Maybe you were offended by my strong language, but I said it that way because I felt that it should be emphatically-said.
.
The class of Physicalists that I referred to are talking fiction.
.
Sorry if that’s offensive, but there’s no nicer way to say it.
.
If it isn’t said forcefully or emphatically, maybe some will miss the message.
.
.
Nothin’ wrong with just sayin’ !
.
When there’s a general or vague criticism of things that I’ve said, I ask for (but never get) something a bit more specific.
.
Then should I better clarify what I mean about the Mystical Spiritual Mumbo-Jumbo Physicalists?
.
I’ll try:
.
They believe in Mind, as something separate and different from the body (needing to be explained in terms of the body by “superevenience”, “epiphenomena” or “emergent-properties”). Doesn’t that sound like Spiritualism? Was that really an unfair word?
.
No, those guys are just making it complicated, when it isn’t.
.
Their “Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness”:
.
“How could that material body, that piece of material, observed by a white-smocked scientist with a clipboard, have 1st-person experience? Inexplicable !!”
.
No, not really.
.
The animal is designed, by natural-selection, to maximize its survival and reproduction. Obviously that requires response to its surroundings, its environment. What would you expect that resultingly-necessary perception and analysis of the surroundings, and preferences, likes, fears, etc. to be like, for the animal. Is it any surprise that you have exactly that experience?
.
What point of view would you expect that to be from? Is it really surprising that you, an animal, have 1st-person experience.
.
Where’s the puzzle in that?
.
Forget about a mind that “supervenes on” the brain, or is an "emergent-property" of the brain. No need to hypothesize that fictional entity in the first place, and then struggle to explain it.
Each of us is just that animal, with its natural-selection-designed purposes, goals, preferences, likes and dislikes.
.
I’d said:
.
.
You replied:
.
.
You don’t like the use of “There are…” in:
.
“There are hypothetical systems of hypothetical facts…”
.
I used to always put “there” in quotes, when I said that a hypothetical fact is “there”. I wasn’t comfortable with saying that a hypothetical or abstract fact is there, because I felt that such expressions are undefined in metaphysics.
.
But Litewave pointed out that self-consistent facts, and consistent systems of facts exist in a meaningful sense, and that there’s no need to be uncomfortable about saying “There are” those facts.
.
Why don’t you like “There are…”?
.
.
What different conclusions did it lead you to?
.
I’d said:
.
.
Someone answered:
.
.
Yes, it would not be, because, as a fact, it would be forbidden by itself if it were true.
So it's a meaningless statement, like "Everything I say is a lie."
.
Agreed.
.
I’m not calling it a paradox—only a statement that can’t be valid.
.
I have no objection to your wording. The point is that a statement “There are no facts” couldn’t be valid, and there’s no disagreement on that.
.
Michael Ossipoff
It goes without saying that you're invited to.
No,that won't do.
I told why the system of inter-referring hypotheticals is inevitable.
Feel free to mention a specific statement or conclusion of mine, in that post, that is incorrect or unjustified (e.g. because it doesn't follow from its alleged justification). But tell why.
Otherwise, all that we're getting from you are vague, unspecified, referentless, unsupported angry-noises.
Michael Ossipoff
It would be a very short list, because Skepticism doesn't rely on any assumptions at all.
Michael Ossipoff
It's actually even more simple to say I am what I am and that's all that I am, which was Popeye's philosophy. For some this may be enough but I am more curious.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Well now we are getting into ultra-brute facts, which is more than a statement, but rather a whole if all kinds of ideas, opinions, conjectures, stories, etc. I can't even begin to address such a waterfall of brute-facts.
Be happy with your philosophy but don't expect anyone to try to understand it.
It isn't provable which metaphysics is right, and maybe the matter of simple animal-ness vs elaborate theories isn't provable either. It's always possible to come up with some elaborately, unnecessarily, complicated theory, tailored to fit the observations.
But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. I like simple suggestions that accord with observations, experiments and experience.
Quoting Rich
Biology and natural-selection give us a pretty good description and explanation of the animal that we all are.
Quoting Rich
Alright, and feel free to specify them if and when you're ready to.
Michael Ossipoff
There are literally noQuoting Michael Ossipoff
facts. Just pieces of a puzzle that I've observed that sort of fit together. This is what I believe philosophy is all about. A detective game that is constantly uncovering new clues. As with some French philosophers, I am much more interested in discovering and understanding than I am with being right.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Is this one of your brute-facts? You have to describe all this is animal, all that is extra-corporeal, and I'll let you know what I think of this brute-fact.
I really can't address your idea until you unambiguously lost all of the brute-facts. There appear to be quite a bit based upon what I've read.
I assumed that you were asking about assumptions, but, upon taking another look, your use of the word "facts" suggests that you were saying that the hypothetical facts that I referred to in the lines between the asterisks were brute facts.
So I'll comment a bit more on those, in answer to your question:
Something hypothetical certainly isn't brute. A hypothetical is the "if" clause of an "if" fact..
But what about the "if" fact itself. Well, of course sometimes an "if" fact is, itself, just the "if" clause of another "if" fact.
Of course an "if" fact could be brute, if it's taken as true without explanation. But, in the systems that I spoke of, facts that aren't pure "if" clauses are consequences of other facts. ...and it all rests on certain purely hypothetical "if"s, and on mathematical theorems and abstract always-true logical facts.
As I mention below, of course mathematical theorems, themselves, are just consequences of "ifs" such as number-system axioms, and geometry axioms.
But, in general, yes, an "if/then" is consequence of some combination of mathematical theorems and abstract always-true logical facts.
Valid mathematical theorems are true as a consequence of a hypothetical set of axioms, such as the axioms of a "field" such as the real number system, with respect to a pair of binary operations such as the operations of multiplication and division.
But remember that there's no need for these systems to rest on anything more than "if"s, because no one's saying that they have any truth, existence or validity, outside their own context.
The whole system rests on "ifs", at its basis...not brute-facts.
Even the provable mathematical theorems are consequences of "if"s--the axioms of the number-system, or of geometry.
It's all based on "if"s.
It has no brute-facts.
What about physical-laws? They're hypothetical "if" facts about relations between hypothetical quantity values. They're part of the "if" clause of "if-then" statements. ...as are the quantity-values themselves.
Michael Ossipoff
I meant multiplQuoting Rich
Sorry, Rich, but a physical world is more complicated than you might like it to be. Such a system of inter-referring hypotheticals includes all sorts of them, including the kinds that I mentioned.
I must have mislunderstood you. I mistakenly thought that you wanted me to specify some of the kinds of facts that I was talking about.
Sorry that a physical world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.
[quote
, Michael , if debatable premises
[/quote]
Is that intended as a sentence? Did you mean a huge list of debatable premises?
As i said, the whole thing rests entirely on "if"s.
No assumptions.
No brute-facts.
Did I ask anyone to?
That isn't a sentence either. I don't know what it means. But that's ok.
Suit yourself. You asked me to list some of the kinds of hypothetical inter-referring facts that i was referring to.
Michael Ossipoff
I meant multiplication and addition.
Michael Ossipoff